Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
On Wed, 2006-15-02 at 15:28 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Especially I have seen statements
about Windows being a CPU hog, when I know it is not. It is, in fact,
slightly less CPU intensive than the versions of Linux I have tried
(on an unloaded machine) and noticeably faster for loading the programs
I use. So I take some time to correct incorrct statements.
My experience is completely the opposite: Linux is less CPU intensive
than Windows on the desktop or on a server. All of my clients have said
the same thing.
It's strange...I've seen similar claims made directly by Microsoft and
Microsoft's friends. I smell something fishy.
Are you saying that I'm a plant or something?
I am absolutely astounded by some of your statements, so I have to ask:
why do you stay here if you have dislike Linux so?
BTW, I talked my girlfriend
into replacing Windows XP with Debian Linux. Linux is more secure for
web browsing, simply because there is less of it.
>
Do you see what I said above? I am absolutely astounded by some of your
statements, including this latest one.
If you want to fool yourself into thinking that Linux distros are more
secure because they're less widely spread, go right ahead.
Umm, just less likely to suffer attack. Even just using Mozilla/
Netscape is more secure on a Windows machine.
I don't hate GPL. But it has its definite drawbacks, and I shall never
use anything GPLd for commercial software.
Okay then. Stop beating everyone over the head with it then.
I'm not. Or at least, I don't think I am. I see a few here who
seem not to understand what it actually says and means. When I
see someone say "Well, if you use dynamic linking, that means
that [L]GPL doesn't apply", when Richard Stallman says the opposite,
I have to believe that there is at the least misconception.
When I see people say that manufacturers should create drivers
for Linux, and the [L]GPL is not any hindrance to that, when
I know for a fact from having discussions with corporate
lawyers just what motivates corporations, and how it discourages
them from producing drivers, then I feel motivated to
dispel the misconception.
I'm not deliberately trying to step on anyone's toes or
hit them on the head. But people who promote things need
to know what they are promoting.
Wiondows is a tool. It has its uses.
Windows is most certainly a tool.
Again, I ask: what in the world are you doing on this mailing list?
I suppose you mean something like "what motivates you to use
this mailing list?".
I need some support for keeping my machine going. For example,
I installed a printer, and it was taking 30 minutes per page
to print. After some exchanges here, I now have a printer which
runs at a more reasonable rate of 4 pages per minute.
I am not a knowledgeable Linux admin. So I need help.
The fact that I use Windows does not mean that I like it.
The fact that I use Linux *also* does not mean that I like it.
It means that I find each to be, on occasion, a useful tool.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
